WotC Shannon Appelcline the layoffs and the OGL fiasco.

[delericho]

...and by 2003 we already saw 3.5e released to try and claw back a little of the OGL....

How so? WotC issued an updated SRD for 3.5e, including materials that hadn't previously been opened.

In fact, IIRC the OGL wasn't actually a particularly big deal in 2003. Most third-party publishers were instead using the d20 license (as that allowed, indeed required, them to declare compatibility). The OGL really took off in 2004 when WotC changed the conditions of the d20 license to add a "morality clause" - that in response to "The Book of Erotic Fantasy".

 

[Mark Craddock]

Perhaps, but without Hasbro's influence what would have been the timeline on 3.5 hitting the streets? My very uneducated guess would say at least a year or two later than what actually transpired.

That is a really good question. I don't think Hasbro cared at that point. They bought WotC for the Pokémon TCG and the fact that Magic came with it was icing on the cake. It also let them find a home for Avalon Hill. Adkinson was still in charge when the decision to develop 3.5 was made.

4E was supposed to add card game mechanics to DnD to prop it up but that didn't work the way they hoped. 4E wasn't a failure for the industry it was failure to Hasbro. If an indy RPG company had made it would have become an RPG.Net darling.

I appreciate he has regrets but his tenure as leader had some really infamous situations.

We need to remember that the 5E team was very small and it was kind of a last gasp project, literally do or die. And as much as I like 5E and its team Critical Role was a major part of their success.

 

[delericho]

Perhaps, but without Hasbro's influence what would have been the timeline on 3.5 hitting the streets? My very uneducated guess would say at least a year or two later than what actually transpired.

Monte Cook said as much in his "review" of 3.5e back in the day (sadly, I haven't been able to find it to link). Whether the timeline was accelerated due to Hasbro or because of the well-documented collapse in 3e sales is open to debate, of course.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Yeah, I read it. I don't buy it. At all.

The OGL was created before Hasbro. The train was already out of the station. After the OGL, Hasbro's first two moves were to introduce 3.5e very quickly, and then to move to 4e without an OGL. In other words, when Hasbro started paying attention, they tried to ditch the OGL within the first seven years.

5e came around, but it was considered a "last gasp" with a skeleton crew. It's not like Hasbro was paying that much attention.

When Hasbro started paying attention again, they stated cooking up a way to get rid of the OGL, again. This wasn't from a lack of institutional knowledge, at all. Like I said, I don't buy the thesis. There were people in WoTC that knew that people would react badly- but Hasbro wanted to monetize it further. They decided that the blowback would be worth it. They decided wrong.

TLDR; every time Hasbro has turned Sauron's eye to D&D, they have tried to monetize it and get rid of the OGL. The thesis is not a good one. Because it doesn't pay any attention to what actually happened.

I still don't think it was blown back that stopped it, I mean it likely made things uncomfortable, but I believe the deciding factor was legal issues, they realized what they were doing wouldn't survive legal challenges, and they couldn't buy off all 3rd parties, it was blow back for nothing, that saved the OGL.

 

[Parmandur]

I still don't think it was blown back that stopped it, I mean it likely made things uncomfortable, but I believe the deciding factor was legal issues, they realized what they were doing wouldn't survive legal challenges, and they couldn't buy off all 3rd parties, it was blow back for nothing, that saved the OGL.

Naw, legally they would have been fine: listening to the more objective analysis at the time, their legal case seemed pretty doled (hence why I call the OGL status quo sand: it blows away in the wind). They stopped because of subscribers threatening to leave, and money

 

[Zardnaar]

Perhaps, but without Hasbro's influence what would have been the timeline on 3.5 hitting the streets? My very uneducated guess would say at least a year or two later than what actually transpired.

From memory it was always planned as a mid edition refresher.

Mid edition often 6 or 6 years.

 

[Staffan]

How so? WotC issued an updated SRD for 3.5e, including materials that hadn't previously been opened.

In fact, IIRC the OGL wasn't actually a particularly big deal in 2003. Most third-party publishers were instead using the d20 license (as that allowed, indeed required, them to declare compatibility). The OGL really took off in 2004 when WotC changed the conditions of the d20 license to add a "morality clause" - that in response to "The Book of Erotic Fantasy".

The OGL and the d20 STL were different things, but not alternatives to one another. Everything published using the d20 STL was also released under the OGL. The OGL covered access to the mechanics, while the d20 STL was what allowed indication of compatibility and the use of the d20 logo.

That said, I think the 3.5e SRD was more expansive than the 3.0 SRD. For example, I think the 3.0 SRD omitted most spell descriptions and just had the spell headers – though since I'm at work now I can't check that for a fact.

 

[delericho]

The OGL and the d20 STL were different things, but not alternatives to one another. Everything published using the d20 STL was also released under the OGL. The OGL covered access to the mechanics, while the d20 STL was what allowed indication of compatibility and the use of the d20 logo.

I had misremembered. Apologies.

Nonetheless, prior to 2003/04 it seemed most (though not all) third-party publishers were using the d20 license. After the insertion of the morality clause the d20 license dropped sharply out of favor, and OGL-only products became the norm.

 

[darjr]

a lot of people have been telling me it’s a nothing burger. From Joe random internet persons like the person who wrote a three paragraph reply to Tim Kask when he posted this, to the twitterati and the discord is that will tell you.

I have had three occasions outside of the internet when people felt it necessary to tell everyone it was a nothing burger.

 

[Aldarc]

The D&D historian points out WotC was afraid if competitors even though D&D lost the lead only in 1997 and 2013.

When you look at a link posted below in the comments, this myth gets debunked by Chris Sims and Owen Stephens.